I think intellegent design should be taught alongside evolution in schools, but I would not be in favor of giving it equal time. The reason I say this is simply because the schools should not only teach evolution, but teach the controversy surrounding it. If you teach evolution and explicitly reject ID, then you are teaching students to accept teachings based on the teacher's or the educational system's authority, not on rational thought. I do not believe that every whacko theory should be taught beside evolution, but the fact that there are a large number of people who believe in ID is reason enough to teach it. If students are taught HOW to think, then WHAT they think will follow. You don't teach students HOW to think by teaching them WHAT to think.

_at_ dichremy Science has lots of evidence for creation, people just tend to disregard it.I think you meant that the evolutionary model, has proof, but even there you are wrong.Evolution has not been proved, it merely has what people call evidence in its favor. Also by belief, I think you mean faith, which is true we have faith in God. As I have said many times before, if you go back to the beginnings of both of our viewpoints, you will have either an eternal intelligent Designer (God) or eternal matter. It takes more faith to believe in eternal matter, than an Intelligent Designer.

_at_ Darby, Creation also has testable premises and accumulated evidence, as I have shown already in some of my other posts.Good Night and God Bless

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould

Creation/ Intelligent design theory also has evidence against it. An intelligent designer would be expected to make intelligent (if not infallible) designs. A few quick examples of unintelligent designs(which have good evolutionary explainations BTW.)What nitwhit decided to have the paths for air into the lungs cross the path for food and water into the stomache? Serious choking hazard.Surely someone with a few minutes of thought could design a lumbar spine (lower back) that works better than the one we have.Cancer? Birth defects? Viral diseases? I'm thinking class action suit to force a recall.If you want to call your faith science, then you have to play by the science rules. Even one unintelligent design falsifies your theory. Just as a single example of anything that couldn't have evolved would falsify Evolution.

When it comes to teaching intelligent design, kids should be taught it as a point of view, not as if it was a fact. Its a brain wash process. If you got two seperate groups of children (i do realise this is unethical) and teach one group about intelligent design based on god and another based on harry potter, they will then debate with each other stating how God created us or if Harry Potter casted a spell and created modern day humans.

I do believe they should be taught both points of view, intelligent design and the science of evolution. Its then up to them to decide which side they take. Being told from a young age what you "have" to believe in (based on no substantial evidence aka PROOF) is just depriving a childs ability to fully use their brains potential by narrowing their scope of reason.

I was a dedicated Christian at a young age, went to church all the time, did my communion etc. Why did i do all that? because its what we were told to do at school. We had to pray before meals etc. As i grew older and realised everything i had been told was based on a book of chinese whispers and not fact i finally accepted that yes even i fell for it as a child.

Im not saying those who believ in creationism are dumb etc, if they live their lives and 100% enjoy living it that way then i am happy for them. No one should be going round preaching though, and FACT is the basis upon which children should be taught.

BDDVM wrote:Creation/ Intelligent design theory also has evidence against it. An intelligent designer would be expected to make intelligent (if not infallible) designs. A few quick examples of unintelligent designs(which have good evolutionary explainations BTW.)What nitwhit decided to have the paths for air into the lungs cross the path for food and water into the stomache? Serious choking hazard.Surely someone with a few minutes of thought could design a lumbar spine (lower back) that works better than the one we have.Cancer? Birth defects? Viral diseases? I'm thinking class action suit to force a recall.If you want to call your faith science, then you have to play by the science rules. Even one unintelligent design falsifies your theory. Just as a single example of anything that couldn't have evolved would falsify Evolution.

First off, you are assuming that the designer is perfect and therefore would not make any mistakes.

In regards to your points on the lower back, there are 2 main problems..

1. How do you explain those living to very old ages in perfect health?

2. The back works perfectly for its intended purpose and, like everythign on earth, is subject to decay when not maintained.

Now moving onto the points about cancer and birth defects, again we cannot assume to know what a designer(if there is one) has in store for his creations. Not to mention that cancer is a modern phenomenon brought about by our deteriorating dietary habits and general pollution levels on earth, food additives and GMO proven carcinogenic.

If there is a designer, we clearly dont know its motives and therefore cannot assume to pick out "problems" with that design, meanwhile skipping over the astonishing design we do find in nature. For instance your choking problem is mostly mitigated by the gullet clsing off the breathing tube, very convieniant you left that out, that is a life saving design and choking is 99,9 percent lack of concentration...

First of all, GMO has not been proved carcinogenic otherwise it would not been approved Second, cancer is not a modern phenomenon, it is just more seen, as people are able to live longer in average.

Your explanation with the closing of the breathing tube is a nice example of how evolution fixes it's previous mistakes. If there was any designer, wouldn't it be easier not to cross the two tubes and not use any closing?

JackBean wrote:First of all, GMO has not been proved carcinogenic otherwise it would not been approved Second, cancer is not a modern phenomenon, it is just more seen, as people are able to live longer in average.

Your explanation with the closing of the breathing tube is a nice example of how evolution fixes it's previous mistakes. If there was any designer, wouldn't it be easier not to cross the two tubes and not use any closing?

okay, since your so sure, show me the proof that no GMOs have been proven carcinogenic..Since I can prove that there indeed are carcinogens in our food.

you say cancer is not a modern phenomenon, yet, from my research it is indeed one. I certainly dont think that is is more seen because we live longer, rather becuase we eat foods that are deprived of all organic minerals bar a few and destroyed by cancer causing agents that give longer shelf lives as well as lots of money to big corporations.Funny how you say we live longer, yet the medical industry killed more people in 2010 then anythign else, including traffic accidents.I advise you to research the medical indrustry and the GMO saga, especially aspartame and flouride and you may just get a shock at what you've been drinking and who knows its poison yet keeps it in the water and soft drinks etc.

you are simply presuming evolution fixed its previous mistake, when infact you cannot but take that on faith, you see, threre can be no mistakes to an unguided process. only results that are neutral.We have a nose for a reason, and thats to breath through, the reason it has all of the hairs and mucosa along with intolerable twists and turns is to clean the air we breath. Those who breath through the mouth and choke are simply breathing incorrectly. The fact that the epiglotus closes to prevent choking is an amazign fact in and of itself and suggesting it would be easier one way is not something we can assume to know, since we dont know the identifty of this would be designe or the kind of trade offs needed to design a hman body..

JackBean wrote:the proof, that GMOs are not carcinogenis is, that they are used. If you have any proof of otherwise, show it.

You're wrong, there are also bad mutations, if they are not deletirous, they can be fixed. Or if they are corrected...

before I present evidence(although i would have thougth you would have checked it out), Please explain to me how the fact that they are used is the proof that they are not carcinogence, GMO's I mean, this is a wild unsubsantiated and patenlty false conclusion. Everybody knows flouride is carcinogence and it is used as rat poison, why do you think 98 percent of europe dont use it?I advise you to read the flouride decption book as well as to some research.

There are many documented cases of governments exposign their citizens to dangerous or deadly chemicals for the sake of experiments, so flouride in the water is non suprise to those who have researched unfortunate but very real phenomenon.Aspartame is an even more shocking story, give me a while to pull up some links and notes and I hope you will take a look!

Oh and your right there are bad mutations, but how does this prove me wrong?